Obesity Research Institute, LLC v. Fiber Research International, LLC
2:16-cv-00061
D. Nev.Feb 12, 2016Background
- ORI issued and served a Rule 45 subpoena on Mr. Shimizu (a Japanese resident) while he attended a trade show in Las Vegas, seeking deposition testimony and documents related to an alleged assignment and product (Propol) in underlying Lanham Act litigation pending in the Southern District of California.
- ORI sought enforcement and contempt sanctions in the District of Nevada after Mr. Shimizu failed to appear for a November 9, 2015 deposition; ORI contends enforcement in the U.S. is appropriate because the asserted assignor (Shimizu Chemical) assigned U.S. rights to Fiber Research.
- Fiber Research listed (Ryusuke/Rieu) Shimizu as a person with discoverable information in its initial disclosures and provided California counsel as his contact; Fiber Research did not attend the Nevada deposition and later indicated Shimizu would submit to deposition in Japan.
- Fiber Research moved to strike/dismiss ORI’s application, arguing the filing improperly named FRI as a defendant, that the Nevada court lacks subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over FRI because FRI was not served, and that ORI’s application seeks contempt only against a third party (Shimizu).
- The magistrate judge analyzed Rule 45(f) transfer factors (burden on nonparty vs. judicial economy, risk of inconsistent rulings, and issuing court familiarity) and concluded the Southern District of California is better positioned to decide subpoena enforcement given the underlying litigation, Shimizu’s residence in Japan, and FRI’s involvement in the SDCA case.
- The court granted transfer of ORI’s application to the Southern District of California, ordered the clerk to transfer and close the Nevada file, and granted FRI’s motion to the limited extent the court would not treat the application as a complaint against FRI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this court should transfer a subpoena-enforcement motion under Rule 45(f) to the issuing court | Transfer unnecessary; Nevada may enforce subpoena because Shimizu was served here and ORI should not be forced to depose in Japan | Transfer appropriate or not opposed on merits; FRI challenged captioning and service, not transfer | Transfer granted to the Southern District of California as "exceptional circumstances" favored issuing court's management and judicial economy |
| Whether the subpoena served in Nevada compelling a Japanese resident to appear in Las Vegas was enforceable | Subpoena valid; Shimizu was served and regularly transacts business in Las Vegas so enforcement and contempt appropriate | Shimizu a Japan resident; deposition in U.S. not required; proposed deposition in Japan; FRI questioned service and venue | Court doubted enforceability given Shimizu’s Japan residence and lack of evidence he "regularly" transacts business within 100 miles of Las Vegas; left merits to issuing court |
| Whether ORI’s filing constituted a complaint against FRI and whether FRI was properly before the Nevada court | ORI’s filing was an application to enforce a subpoena in a case involving FRI; ORI listed FRI in caption because FRI is opposing party in SDCA litigation | FRI argued the filing should be struck/dismissed because it names FRI as defendant without service, so Nevada lacks jurisdiction; ORI seeks relief only against third party Shimizu | Court held application does not state a claim against FRI and will not treat FRI as a defendant; granted motion to strike/dismiss to that limited extent |
| Whether transfer would unduly burden the subpoenaed nonparty | ORI argued transfer to issuing court would not increase burden and issuing court is better positioned | Concern for nonparty’s interest in local resolution of subpoena-related motions | Court balanced interests and found transfer would not add burden to Shimizu while promoting judicial economy and minimizing inconsistent rulings; transfer ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Moon Mountain Farms, LLC v. Rural Cmty. Ins. Co., 301 F.R.D. 426 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (discusses factors for Rule 45(f) transfer and balancing test)
- In re UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. of Puerto Rico Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 3d 286 (D.D.C. 2015) (court should not assume issuing court is better positioned for all subpoena motions)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Valle Del Sol, Inc., 307 F.R.D. 30 (D.D.C. 2014) (nonparty’s local resolution interest must be balanced against interests of efficient management of underlying litigation)
- Music Grp. Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd. v. Does, 82 F. Supp. 3d 979 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (party seeking transfer bears burden of showing exceptional circumstances)